I need it to compliment what I already have, and I need it to be something I'm going to get some use out of.

I own the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 f/4 IS. I also own a 28-105 which I normally don't carry but may bring.

Also, my personal preference time to shoot is at dusk / evening. Yes, I will take some daytime shots with it, but my passion is dusk shooting, if that makes any sense! There is a small chance in the future I will go to a full frame sensor as well. But I am confident if I had to sell the lens I could, they hold their value well I believe.

Have I missed something? The Canon 15-85 was ruled out and the 16-35 ruled out because of price.

Also, I know many advocate trying the copy you will purchase at the camera store. I would have to think the Canon and the Sigma 10-20 would be able to be tried and purchased at a camera store. The other two may have to be ordered on Amazon due to their availability.

Thank you very much for the advice! Any hotel suggestions are welcome as well.

All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.

I own the Sigma 10-20 and I absolutely love it. I ordered my copy from Amazon and discovered a soft/blurry spot on the left side of all images taken at wider apertures. I did some reading on the web and found out that it performs it's very best at small apertures. So now I stop down to f/13-16 and the problem was solved and images tack sharp throughout. I take a lot of hand-held shots at dusk and at night, sometimes bracketing for HDRs and althought I have to boost ISO at the small appertures, I am extremely pleased with the results. I could have sent it back, but I found a good work-around and I'm happy. Sigmas quality control is iffy, so you might want to play with it in store and check images carefully.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 2):1. The least distortion out of all of the UWA options.

I suppose it's up to personal taste, but the wacky distortion commonly asociated with UWA lenses is the reason most people want/like these lenses. It turns the most ordinary subject into something interesting to look at. It really opens the doors to creativity.

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.

Ron, both the Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 are fine lenses. I owned the Sigma first, and traded it in eventually for the Canon. I think the Canon produces sharper images overall, but for the price the Sigma cannot be beat. Have fun at SXM!
-Matt

I've got the Canon 10-22mm and I must say I've only been impressed by the quality. I got mine via Amazon as well. I haven't noticed any soft spots on this lens and the optics are superb - pretty much comparable to a low end L just like the 17-55mm. I had a go with my friend's borrowed 17-55mm at a party a few weeks ago and although I should have tested both lenses out at once, it seemed as though one of the only benefits of the 17-55mm was the extra focal distance and the ability to stop down to f/2.8.

So although it stops down to only f/3.5-4.5, you'll be able to use it in a very similar way to the 17-55mm in terms of using it wide open and still be able to get pretty decent shots from it, if you want to of course. But when I first got it, I stuck to around f/6.3-8 as I've only otherwise had the kit 18-55mm which was pretty soft wide open and I hadn't had much exposure to high quality glass..

At the moment, I must say it's my primary lens. I'm sure it'll complement your kit nicely and you won't have to change your style much when changing between this one and the 17-55mm.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 2):There are profiles out there for auto-correction in Lightroom 3

Somehow the auto correction profiles don't seem to do much (from what I've experienced in CS5).. I keep having to do my own custom tweaks if I really want to but most of the time I just keep it as it is.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 2):Built like a tank, can use standard 77mm filters

Yeah, the 10-22 is not so much a tank being of that plasticky build but no way does it feel flimsy either. But you'll be used to the 17-55mm anyway. 77mm on this one too but I guess it's not really much of an issue.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 3):I suppose it's up to personal taste, but the wacky distortion commonly asociated with UWA lenses is the reason most people want/like these lenses. It turns the most ordinary subject into something interesting to look at. It really opens the doors to creativity.

Moustache and optical distortions are not the same thing as perspective distortion, which is what most people associate with a wide angle lens and is more of a function of the perspective of the user.

Most UWA lenses tend to have strange moustache distortion. The Tokina 11-16 displays a more reasonable, lesser barrel distortion that's easy to correct if one chooses.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 6):Moustache and optical distortions are not the same thing as perspective distortion, which is what most people associate with a wide angle lens and is more of a function of the perspective of the user.

I have never noticed or heard of moustache distortion. Interesting.

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.

Another voter for the Sigma 10-20mm here as well. I looked at the Sigma and Canon and for the money, you can't beat the Sigma. I've been using one for 3 years and it's one of the sharpest lenses I have. It's great for cabin and flight deck shots, window views, landscapes and I'm sure it'll serve you well in SXM too.

Apart from the Sigma 8-16 I've used all of them and when it is about optics and build quality the Tokina(which I still use) is the clear winner if you ask me.
Obviously it lacks the 10-22/22 range so if that is important for you.................

I don't have experience with the other lenses you mentioned, but if you get a good copy of the Tokina and are fine with the range (a tad limited for some) you're most likely not going to be disappointed I think.

From everything I read here and elsewhere the Canon 10-22 is a suberb quality lens. I have briefly tried Tony's for a few shots and it's quite solid. I wonder though if I could be more creative with something a little more unique like the 8-16mm Sigma or the 11-16 2.8 Tokina. I know it's the photographer that brings forth creativity, but for example, I'm wondering if I could get a bit more orginality out of the 8mm end of the Sigma VS the 10mm end of the Canon. OR the 2.8 flexibilty of the Tokina.

The Tokina 2.8 would be good for some low light ops, but I do have the 2.8 on my 17-55 2.8 IS. I have to think that most low light opportunites that present themselves can be done with the 17 end on my 2.8 almost as well.

And people are definitely correct, the Sigma 10-20 appears to be an excellent value.

I'm leaning just a bit towards that 8-16 Sigma. Wondering if the 8mm could add a little perscpective that the 10-22 / 10-20 / 11-16 can't. The Sigma 8-16mm Flickr group has some outstanding photos: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1381252@N21/

I also recall Royal saying something about a lens can never be too wide.

One of our esteemed contributors who isn't allowed to post here at the moment emailed me and mentioned the Canon 8-15 fisheye. Right now the list price is $1,400 but it hasn't been released yet. I think it would be a little far out of my budget. Or rather perhaps my use of it would not justify the cost.

Also, I'm not sure the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 is worth the almost $200 more than the slower version. I'm sure it's higher quality, just not sure it's worth it to me. I don't know.

All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.

Quoting RonS (Reply 13):Also, I'm not sure the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 is worth the almost $200 more than the slower version.

The 8-16 is another 200 buck more (according Sigma list price).

Quoting RonS (Reply 13):I wonder though if I could be more creative with something a little more unique like the 8-16mm Sigma or the 11-16 2.8 Tokina.

They should not be compared really.
The Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20(both of them) and Tokina 11-16 are all UWA that come with little or no distortion.
Thus if a distortion free image is what you are looking for you choice should be between them.

The Sigma 8-16 not quite so, guess it fits somewhere between a UWA and a Fisheye.
Still a valid choice of course if this is what you are looking for.
The only competitor in this area is probably the Tokina 10-17, comparable range but a bit faster and probably halve the price.
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx107afdx-b.html

As Dan said, I own and use the 10-22. I really enjoy shooting ultra-wide and I've found the 10-22 to be lots of fun and I like the results. I also owned the Sigma 10-20 (the "old one, 4-5.6) for a very brief period of time. Here are my thoughts on the two lenses and on some of the alternatives:

- Optics-wise, the 10-22 is great. Build-quality-wise is sub-par IMHO for a lens of that price. It just feels very plasticky and the zoom / focus rings just feel very, very cheap. And despite its price it comes with no lens hood, another of my pet peeves on Canon's "we hate our customers" policies (thankfully, there are cheap third-party options).

- I had originally got the Sigma 10-20 given that I didn't want to spend a lot of money on an EF-S lens and the Sigma promised to be almost as good and cheaper. This was my first experience with a Sigma lens and, most likely, my last. As Ryan reported, my copy was totally blurry (I can't even call it "soft") on the left side and I didn't even need to pixel-peep to see how bad it was (in fact, it was even obvious on the screen of my XTi!). So I returned it after a day's shooting (I'm grateful for Amazon's hassle-free return policy) and I replaced it with the 10-22 a month later. Sadly, this seems to be the story with Sigma lenses. If you read the reviews they all say "great lens, provided you get a good copy". You know what, life's too short to play Russian Roulette every time you order a lens. I should also say, however, that build-quality-wise and feel-wise I found the Sigma to be superiod to th 10-22. And center / left-side sharpness were very good. I would have been happy with it if I had picked up a good copy. But I didn't...

- I agree with Royal that you can never go wide enough. There were several occasions where I would have loved to have gone wider than 10mm.

- Regarding the Tokina 11-16: I would personally not consider it for a couple of reasons. CA is one. Yes, I agree with Dan that you can deal with it in PS. But I do have a couple of lenses that exhibit CA under certain conditions and in some occasions I was not able to remove it in a satisfactory manner. So, I don't think I want to have to deal with even more of it. The second reason is that its focal length range is very limited. Sometimes I've used the 10-22 as a "walk-around" lens and it allowed me to avoid changing lenses when I needed to go a bit longer. If I had the Tok I would have been forced to change lenses often, which would have been a pain. Sure, my 17-40 is probably better at 22mm than the 10-22, but I do also appreciate the convenience of not having to swap lenses.

- Regarding the 8-15 fisheye: what were Canon thinking / smoking?!?!?! First, a fisheye is not always a replacement for a rectalinear ultra-wide lens. Second, $1,400 is a lot of money for a novelty (as Dan calls fisheye lenses) lens. Also, who really needs a fisheye zoom? I really can't believe that they thought they'd sell more copies of it compared to releasing a 14-24 to match Nikon's offering (which would be the "killer app" for me to move to FF).

SNATH sums it up very well in his informative post. It does feel plasticky and nothing like an 'L' in feel but the glass is good like an 'L' and the depth of field is very impressive after using compressed telephotos.

I don't think I would ever get rid of mine, the resulting photos sharpen so well and it just offers a different perspective, you talk about it not being wide enough, seriously it will be hard enough keeping your shadow or tripod legs out of shots on 10mm, it feels like it has a wider field of view than the human eye sometimes!

You can never go too wide. Unless you are talking about your girlfriends butt

The only thing I would really look for as a red flag on a wide angle lens is corner smearing. My Sigma 15-30 (the only affordable wide angle lens back when I got my first DSLR in '02) exhibits this on some shots in the extreme bottom left when lots of DOF is used. For "flat" subjects like a cockpit it isn't much of a problem.

I was holding off, thinking I would just rent one for my trip. But today I found a very lightly used Tokina 11-16 2.8 on Craigslist for $230 less than the cheapest Amazon price. I picked it up just a little while ago, pretty spontaneously. It feels, sounds and looks pretty good. I tested it out on the new JetBlue "jets" aircraft, will post tomorrow. Thanks for everyone's input.

All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.

$500, I can't tell it apart from new. The canon version appears to be more expensive on Amazon, and right now it also seems backordered. I saw BH and Adorama have it cheaper than Amazon, but backordered.

All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.

First test of my Tokina, I like it. Not sure about my editing skills, as I'm not used to UWA lens editing (level was a pain) and I slightly underexposed cause I was in a rush. But as far as the lens is concerned, sweet!

All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.

That's what makes the 7D so good! I can see what you mean though.. I try to level it either in the middle of the image or at least over a big area which is equidistant to the frame of the picture as you assume that the distortion is similar on both sides so that if there's any slight fisheye in the middle, it's evened out and catered for from the points selected.